When will US troops start to say "NO?"

[DuctapeFatwa]

The greatest military heroes in the world today are the brave Israeli soldiers who have had the courage to say "NO" when ordered to commit crimes against humanity and atrocities against their fellow human beings, and to those who are religious, their brothers under God.

As a species, we owe a debt of gratitude to these young men, and also to their parents, who could not ask for a better testament to their own labor of love, or more irrefutable evidence that teaching good values to your kids DOES pay off.

It could be that some of these Israeli soldiers, when they decided to say "NO," were thinking of older family members, or graves of same, and wishing that in another place, another time not so long ago, more German soldiers had found the courage to say "NO."

We hear a lot about supporting our troops.

Supporting them in their work destroying homes and crops? Beating prisoners? Refusing medical care to burned children? Shooting civilians? Making little girls defecate in front of strangers at gunpoint? Torturing people?

When will we support our troops enough to help them find the courage to remember what America is SUPPOSED to stand for, and do their own present and future kids a favor and give them a hero for a father, and give their parents the gift of knowing that their son is a MENSCH - with the courage to say "NO?"

[Francis]

1. Never I hope

[GiovanniC]

4. Did You Read and Understand the Post? n/t

[Francis]

5. Sure Did

There are always wrongs commited during wars, but I'm damned if I'm going to go along with the sweeping generalisation that all are troops are bad.
They are doing a job that is required of them, in extremely difficult circumstances.
The whole command chain requires that they follow orders.
And I don't doubt that whatever their personal feelings are, the majority will be doing their very best to make a good job of what is required of them.

[JohnyCanuck]

6. Same thing that the Wehrmacht high command said in 1939,

as the Blitzkrieg rolled into Poland, I wouldn't doubt.

"They are doing a job that is required of them, in extremely difficult circumstances.
The whole command chain requires that they follow orders."

I thought the Nuremberg trials established that "I was following orders" wasn't good enough.

[PsychoDad]

99. Himmler acknowledged...

That the S.S. had an extremely difficult job, in extremely difficult circumstances while they were exterminating the jews.

It was too personal, the shootings, that's why Himmler went to a more streamlined and impersonal method... The camps.

I'm sure some of you appreciate that the germans supported their troops to the bitter end....

[GiovanniC]

7. The Point Is

That if they're asked to commit an atrocity, they should say "no".

If they are ordered to shoot civilians, they should say "no".

If they are ordered to bulldoze people's homes, they should say "no".

If they are ordered to decimate farms, orchards, etc. as some kind of misguided 'punishment', they should say "no".

If they are ordered to torture people, they should say "no".

There's a time for following orders, and there's a time for saying "no".

[Francis]

13. I am not convinced

that atrocities are being commited by order.
Leveling orchards, may not be very nice but I don't rate it as an atrocity, depending on what you read, the rationale was to clear the trees so snipers would have no cover.
i just did not like the sweeping generalisation of the initial post.
I have no family over there, but I tell you I would resent like hell if I did, and read that my relative was a hired thug.
Insurrection within the armed services is a very serious crime and it ill behooves anyone to encourage it without being on the ground and having proof positive that these soldiers are being commanded to commit atrocities

[GiovanniC]

14. Atrocity

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=452375

"US soldiers... have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops. The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad... Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed, said: 'They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but this is not true. They didn't capture anything. They didn't find any weapons.' Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district."

I think that there are terrorists hiding out on your property, Francis. Now tell me where they are or I will destroy your only source of livelihood and food.

I mean it, Francis. Tell me where on your property the terrorists are or you will starve to death.

This is your last warning.

[Francis]

15. too funny

Now you obviously agree with these tactics as you wish to level them against me

[GiovanniC]

18. I'm Telling You

If those tactics shouldn't be used on you, they shouldn't be used on them.

[Classical_Liberal]

85. Oh fuck

You had to know this was coming when they said the were taking tips from Israel. Bleck. I'll bet this policy makes us really popular. Israel's policy is deliberately antagonistic and deliberately tries to make Arabs miserable, because they want the Arabs to leave. This administration is just dumber than a box of rocks. there is no question about it.

[Francis]

86. It surely does

have the resonance of the IDF
HOWEVER, they are soldiers, not policy makers
Theirs is but to do and die

[Eloriel]

66. It's an atrocity that you DON'T think razing orchards is an atrocity

Blows me away, actually.

Eloriel

[Francis]

87. try and get out more often

[PsychoDad]

101. Leveling orchards

Is against the Gineva convention. It is a war crime.

[Karenina]

33. The Israeli "Refusniks"

are the GREATEST heroes of our time and embody the phrase, "A light among/upon/unto the nations." THEY ALONE are demonstrating the TRUE ethics of an ancient, mystical faith in a POSITIVE WAY. May G_d bless them. their families and communities. ENOUGH WITH THE BLOODSHED. It's gone so far beyond ridiculous now. WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

[Francis]

88. Answer ?

Dump the god biz
easy?

[Zhade]

94. Heroes, all of them.

NT!

[PsychoDad]

102. I agree.

May G_d bless them. their families and communities.
And everyone else who stands against the hate and violence.

The prophet Muhammad (saw) said: "The greatest jihad is a just word to an unjust ruler". These Men are heros who have stood up to utter a just word against unjust rulers.

[w4rma]

58. They can't. They are indentured servants stuck in Iraq.

Most also don't understand politics enough to know why they should say "no". They're soldiers, not politicians or political activists or philosophers, etc. They were hired for their willingness to follow orders not their willingness to debate orders.

Don't expect enough soldiers to say "no" to make a difference. Just try to get them home another way.

[RapidCreek]

8. Yea me too Francis!

I'll follow my orders when they include blowing the shit out of your house....while you, your wife and kids are eating dinner. After all you are posting on a "suspicious" discussion board....and could be unpatriotic and a threat to national security! I'd do a good job...regardless of my personal feelings...you know, even though the circumstances were really difficult.

RC

[LeahMira]

103. Not to pick on Francis, but...

I'll follow my orders when they include blowing the shit out of your house....while you, your wife and kids are eating dinner. After all you are posting on a "suspicious" discussion board....and could be unpatriotic and a threat to national security! I'd do a good job...regardless of my personal feelings...you know, even though the circumstances were really difficult.


Yes, turn it around and see how it feels. As someone else posted, these young men and women are not philosophers and politicians. They are just our children, frightened and full of bravado at the same time. What must it do to a young person who must steel himself not just to shooting at someone who shoots at him/her, but to use tactics like these on civilian families?

There is a quote that might be from Golda Meir or maybe it's from someone else... I'm not sure. Anyhow, it says that if Arabs killed young Israeli men and women, in time perhaps some kind of forgiveness could happen, but there is no forgiveness for Arabs turning young Israeli men and women into killers.

I'm not making any statement against self-defense or against soldiering in defense of one's nation here. I'm just trying to explain the same sort of thinking that plays out when Jewish people take a drop of wine out of their Passover cup each year for each of the ten plagues that afflicted Egypt. We celebrate our freedom, but at the same time we mourn the price that our freedom cost to even our enemies. (I'm speaking of Jews because that's my tradition and way of understanding the world... not because it has any particular role in this event.)

In this case, leveling the orchards in Iraq, it is not our enemies in Iraq who are turning our young men and women into heartless killers and destroyers. It is the orders they are receiving from their superiors and eventually from our own government.

These young people will have to live with the memory of what they did, the memory of the people they harmed, for the rest of their lives. This is not "shoot or be shot at." This is gratuitous violence against people who cannot possibly fight back and who never fought in the first place.

Some of the soldiers will return to the U.S. with nightmares, psychoses, and general dysfunctions that will be suffered by them for the rest of their lives. Others will return hardened, cruel, and insensitive to the suffering of their fellow humans, ready to do whatever "must" be done despite the consequences and unwilling or even unable to consider any better, more humane alternative. We certainly have enough of these hardened, uncaring types in the world now. They will do anything to compete, get ahead, make more money, whatever. For themselves. No matter who gets hurt.

I've read that Timothy McVeigh was ordered to shoot anyone on the enemy side who remained alive and stirring on the field after a battle in the Gulf War. Of course if the critically wounded person happened to be an American that person would be rushed to receive medical attention, but if the critically wounded person happened not to be an American, a quick bullet was his or her fate. I don't know how any human being can come to terms with that sort of experience, and we all know what happened with Timothy McVeigh. He even welcomed death.

What are we doing to our children? What sorts of people will be coming back home after this war is finished? What are we doing to ourselves and our American people?

These are the kinds of things I worry about.

As we all grow older, who will care for us? The young person who wept after he bulldozed the orchard? The young person who refused to bulldoze the orchard? Or the young person who bulldozed the orchard without a qualm?

I know you disagree, Francis, but I honor the young men and women who refuse. I honor them not only because they are somehow managing to keep their humanity in what must be hell, but I also honor them because I know that they will honor and respect you and me.

And I really don't mean to pick on you. When I'm wrong, please tell me. I owe you one and I'm sure you are a decent fellow at heart.

[atreides1]

9. And I'm Sure

You would have found the German military innocent of war crimes. After all they meet your standard of doing the job that was required of them, and that the whole command chain required that they follow orders.

Because after all, isn't that what all good soldiers do, they follow orders irregardless of their personal feelings. It's a good thing that the US didn't sign on for the International Criminal Court, now our soldiers can commit all the war crimes they want and with apologisits like you they will never be held accountable.

I guess what some people say is true, there are still those that think that war crimes are juat a red herring.

[gratuitous]

10. "But I was only following orders!"

Unfortunately, that's not a defense anymore, and the Geneva Conventions (to which the U.S. is a signatory, George W. Bush's disdain for old pieces of paper notwithstanding) specifically prohibit certain actions (from Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions):

Art. 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

* * *


2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

* * *


4. These objects shall not be made the object of reprisals.

___________________

If troops really are bulldozing orchards and crops as a method of getting the locals to "talk" about where the guerillas may be, it's specifically prohibited. The troops have a duty to disobey any such order. And that duty is not just a "moral" one, changeable at a commander's whim, but a legal one.

[gratuitous]

48. I keep reading the protocol

And it keeps saying that bulldozing the civilian orchards would be prohibited for any motive. It doesn't make any exceptions if the persons owning the orchards or rich, or if someone "suspects" that snipers might be using the trees for cover.

But what do I know? I'm just a person reading plain English. I'm sure our soldiery would never e-e-e-ever violate the Geneva Conventions just out of frustration or boredom or for any other reason.

[kevinc]

49. if there are combatants using the field for

any kind fo military use they are fair game...just the same as wehn koe snuffy civilian picks up a rifle and threatens with it he too is fair game get it?

[gratuitous]

63. Nope, I still don't see those exceptions

And who declares that the orchard has become a combat target? Certainly the military folks who are bulldozing it would like anyone to believe that they're doing it for a good reason, but the Protocols state specifically that destruction of civilian crops and foodstuffs is prohibited for any reason. That's "any" reason -- good or bad.

[kevinc]

65. Well

The destruction of Churhes, Mosques and other cultural or historical items are also forbidden targets...but once they are used for any military purpose they are fiar game...

I guess the point is wether or not you see it...the reasons are there

[gratuitous]

73. Nope

Your posts remind me of the old riddle: How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Four. Just because you call its tail a leg, it's still a tail. Just because the troops claim that snipers are shooting at them from the orchard doesn't make it true, and it doesn't qualify as an exception to the Protocol (of which there are none).

This could be why folks have stopped responding to you: Despite the facts and the plain letter of the law, you maintain that the troops are doing something all too common and declaiming that it's somehow "right." It's certainly your prerogative to do so, but for the rest of us living in a reality of laws, treaties and honor, we decline to participate.

[kevinc]

80. didnt look very far did you?

3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:
a. as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or
b. if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.

[gratuitous]

89. Subsection 3 doesn't apply

Even if the orchards are used by snipers as cover (a point only alleged and not proven), it is debatable whether that constitutes "direct support of military action." However, the orchards are definitely not used as sustenance solely for members of the Iraqi armed forces, as the local population also uses the orchard for sustenance. With the destruction of their orchards, the civilian population will almost certainly have inadequate food and may be forced to relocate, both of which are clear violations of the Protocol.

The bulldozing of the orchards is a war crime perpetrated by the armed forces of the United States -- deal with it.

[Francis]

51. Ah !

It's all in the way it's told
It will be argued that it wasn't the bulldozing of an orchard, it was the removal of cover that was being used by guerillas.
You left fear out, that's a huge factor.
The US Troops look like US troops, the guerillas look like civilians.
So the troops must be tense and strained, just never knowing where it will come from.
It isn't "right", very few wars are, it's nasty, it's awful, but I don't see it as an atrocity.
Now Agent Orange?
We're talking atrocity

[Capn Sunshine]

16. Note that the military code takes pains to point out

that the crime is
"disobeying a LAWFUL order"

That leaves a lot open to interpretation.

And if you think a person should go against his beliefs and conscience then you are saying our troops are as valuable as a robot.

[Francis]

17. That's right

That's exactly what the army requires.
Most people's consciences don't let them kill people, however the training of an army involves that very thing.
We may not like it, we may hope to hell it's never needed, but at the end of the day, it's a soldier's duty to obey an order.
I am not really up to speed on The nuremberg trials but I don't recall the rank and file being charged.
Some prison camp personnel were.

[izzie]

97. The army has to do as it is told but.........

Some things are not to be told to it, to do.This has always been a big thing through out history. Our gov set up a bead factory for the army to trade beads with the Indians as we had the army push them off their land and took it over, and paid them often in beads as the Indians put value in them. Were they wrong to do that? We could go into this over and over. Our founders wanted the people to control the army and yet things like this did happen. I am sure the people wanted the Indians off the land which they wanted, so guess it comes down to what the people will want and let the army, do that stands.Only a few in the army or regular people will do as he fells right and bucks what everyone else is doing, if they are told to do it. Few have that grade of moral judgement.

[Flying_Pig]

2. I wish it were soon, but given the fascist climate the Bush/PNAC

cabal have instituted in this country, I doubt it will be. Some things are rotten to the core, and I am sure individual soldiers overhwlemed by the enormity of the "rot", fear in a way some of their brethern in Israel do not. As fascist as Sharon is, I am surprised there are any "refusniks" there at all. It is a testament to their moral courage, something in short supply, both here, and in Israel.

[donsu]

3. why arn't our military officers standing up for the troops?

The officer corp has a lot of explaining to do. They are always talking about honor. What honor?

Maybe our military officers are cowards.

[atreides1]

12. The Officer Corps

For the most part mainly consists of civilians in uniform. Most, not all officers have only their interests at heart. This goes for most of the senior NCO's also, no interest in their troops or their well being.

This has always been the case, and it only got worse after Desert Storm. It was the main reason that I got out 7 years short of retirement. Because speaking for myself, I would have no problem shooting an officer or senior NCO who tried to order me to violate
the Geneva Convention.

The way I see it most officers are nothing more then civilians wearing a costume with pretty ribbons on their chests, and being married to someone on active duty I see them all the time.

[rocktivity]

11. I'm afraid some soliders have found another way to say "no"

Army probes soldier suicides
Alarmed by the number of suicides among soldiers in Iraq, the Army has asked a team of doctors to determine whether the stress of combat and long deployments is contributing to the deaths...

...at least 11 soldiers and three Marines have committed suicide in Iraq...That is an annual rate of 17 per 100,000...Last year, the military services reported 8 to 9 suicides per 100,000...That mirrors the rate for the same age group in the general population...
To figure that out, they have to do a fancy study? Throw in a little embarassment at being conned by the Pretzel-Dunce, resentment of being rejected by the civilians, and fear of not knowing where the next guerilla attack is coming from, and you've got your answer!


The Army has sent 478 soldiers home from Iraq for mental-health issues...in previous wars, many of those cases would have been treated in the war zone. The Army doesn't have enough mental-health resources in Iraq to treat many of the cases.
And The Pretzel-Dunce wants to spend 87 billion on WHAT? Also, I'd like very much to know if THAT number falls within the miltary "norm"!


rocknation

[kevinc]

19. Hey you know what...

On military matters this is the biggest group of uninformed idiots that I have ever seen... Shoot civilians? Nope not on purpose..but once said civilians pull a gun..guess what BAAAAAM.

Accidents and friendly fire happen..

and about the fields..I heard from the military that they were leveled because of the snipers and the places to hide...you hear from the Iraqis "that they are being punished for ..blah blah blah.." and that is what you believe.. Why does the term useful idiot come to mind?
Soldiers going home for mental health reasons...hummmm 11 successful suicides...well when i was in Korea we had at least 1 a month attempt it..and that was just in my general area...
We may not like that the troops are there...we may not like who sent them but you had DAMN WELL had better appreciate the fact they are in danger and the absolute last thing they need to do is listen to shit like this disobey orders and get more of them and Iraqis killed..

and another thing..even if all the troops say no do you really think that the terrorists or "freedom fighters" if you will are going to stop killing them? No..if they refuse and disobey that only makes them easier targets..much the same way that the palestinian terror groups are going to attack isreal regardless..because they exist..period...get a clue..I have seen some great things here but in military issues most of the group is clueless.

[GiovanniC]

20. "I heard from the military"

Well, that settles the issue in my mind, because the military has no reason to lie.

/sarcasm

At best, it's a wash. Both sides have reasons to lie about this issue. However, even pretending that I believe the military (I don't), there is no excuse to demolish a civilian's only source of food and livelihood. Would you have me believe that if a sniper was hiding out on rooftops of buildings, you'd have them destroy the buildings?

[tlcandie]

21. Suicides anyone?

n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

24. So make yourself useful.

We're glad that you're here in Texas to defend us.

But some of the guys over there are Reservists & Guardsman. You're a professional--wouldn't your expertise be more useful in Iraq?

[kevinc]

26. Nice try sweetie..

already been...546 FST..right next to the 86th CSH in support of 3rd ID..

[GiovanniC]

28. Let's Say I Believe The Military

Are you saying that it is right to destroy farms, orchards, etc. -- the sole source of food and income for many of these people -- because they believe that snipers might hide there?

Again, if snipers were using rooftops instead, would you support just bulldozing all the buildings in the region, "just to be safe"?

Do you honestly think that destroying private property of civilians, eliminating food sources and wiping out sources of income for poor Iraqis is really going to lead to net gains in military safety? What do you honestly think motivates these people? Are you of the opinion that these snipers are just attacking the troops because "they hate our freedoms", and not for this exact same kind of bullsh*t?

[kevinc]

29. Hey guy

These snipers are the types of folks that kill cause they can and want to..they do not like the U.S. for whatever reason..they are saddam loyalists and Islamic fundalmentalists that regardless of what we do are going to attack US troops and intrests...
I said that you can secure buildings and guard them..and you cant do that with large fields with trees..

Poor Iraqis? huh? Orchids and groves are prime real estate.. it seems to me that to own one that you would have to be pretty well off...I dunno could be wrong..

[GiovanniC]

30. Well, I See the Disconnect Here

Unless I'm understanding you incorrectly, you believe that the Iraqis hate us "just because", not for any significant reason. As you said, they just kill the troops "cause they can" and "cause they want to". I do not hold this view. I think that bombing the f*ck out of their houses, killing their family members, allowing their national treasures to be looted, and destroying their food sources and livelihood (among other things!) might contribute somewhat to the negative feelings some Iraqis hold toward Americans. I don't believe that any amount of debate will change your mind much, either, since I have had these conversations before (though never with a Dem) and it's like banging your head on a brick wall.

By the way, characterizing Iraqis who happen to own farmland, groves and orchards as "pretty well off" is like saying that American farmers are "pretty well off". I suppose it can be true in some cases, but in the vast majority of cases it isn't, especially if someone comes through and destroys your f*ckin' farm.

[Zhade]

93. THIS GUY IS FLAME-BAIT. Put him on ignore - I did.

He's just another clueless, brainwashed disruptor. Not worth the time of day.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

40. I'll say it: You're Absolutely CLUELESS

If you really were in the Army, I'd assume you've been recently discharged for incompetence. If you weren't, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

I'm a veteran too, sparky, and I'm not going to buy into brutality just because YOU say it's OK. I'm sure you've given persuasive speaking your best shot, but you don't have a great deal of material with which to work when the whole damned thing was based on lies.

I should end with a Freeper-esque flourish, like "'nuff said" or "period", but I'm just not up for it today.

[kevinc]

45. you

wow so inciteful and well said..
you have really shown me alot..

gasp

[kevinc]

46. oh I get it

this goes back to the common american and esp now the soldiers are idiots cause we dont subscribe to the exact theory as you do....

well golllllleeeeee I sur'm sorry for expressin my views

[RapidCreek]

96. Don't say "we", pal

I'm a former soldier and you SURE AS HELL DON'T SPEAK FOR ME. If it's Rush "my butthole hurts, gimme a pill" Limdick, AWOL George, Dick "I got more important things to do" Cheney or Tom "Homeys got all the good jobs" Delay, you're speaking for, feel free. Leave me and the rest of the sentient soldiers and Vets to speak for ourselves. Yea, chief they are your views, don't hang them our necks.



RC

[RapidCreek]

91. Saddam loyalists, are they?

How the FUCK DO YOU KNOW! More self serving bullshit. I'd guess quite a few are the fathers, mothers, sisters, uncles and brothers of little kids like this one.



Is she a Saddam loyalist? I got a few hundred more photos like the one above, hotshot. If I was that kids father, it wouldn't matter what the hell I thought of Saddam Hussein....YOU can BET YOUR sweet ass I'd be killing as many of the fuckers that destroyed my child as I could. Hell I might make my way to the US and have a few accidents of my own. You could shove your countries interests, your liberating motives, your suspicions of my nations possession of WMD's right up your self righteous ass.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. You think the average American who's kid ended up like the one above at the hand of Iraqi troops would think any more of the fuckers who did it because he either hated or loved AWOL George? If you think so, you are an incontrovertible boob. Therein lies the problem, tough guy. If there are even 200 Iraqis with the sentiments most Americans would have in the same circumstance, there'll be a WHOLE LOT of Americans in for some real rough times. Soldiers and civilians alike. Here and abroad. Sadly, it ain't a hypothetical situation, is it? Every day our soldiers stay in Iraq and engage in further stupidity, is a day which generates more hostility toward them, my family and my countrymen. All so a few greedy motherfuckers can stuff a pile of money into their already swollen pockets. Motherfuckers, who dodged the draft or went AWOL, who's kid's are in Ivy League Universities, who's companies headquarters are a PO box in the Caymans and who send the jobs the soldiers in Iraq used to have to that great and wonderful place you helped "free" years ago. Get it?

RC
US VET

[LeahMira]

104. Distancing, anyone?

These snipers are the types of folks that kill cause they can and want to

If you can somehow make the average Iraqi into someone who is less than fully human, it does make it much easier to kill him without qualms, doesn't it?

We did that in Vietnam (gooks), and we did that in Japan (Japs) and we can do that in Iraq (ragheads).

Doesn't make it right, though.

[Skittles]

32. there are lots of veterans on this board

myself included. We are NOT idiots.

[kevinc]

35. Well skittles

You havent made any of the remarks the rest of these guys and I doubt that any veteran would..and being currently active duty...i dont have a clue where folks are getting their Ideas from and where they make these remarks...."soldiers should just say no"
They arent there, havent been there and have no clue....

and as to the Orchids and Groves..think about the climate over there for just a minute..how much it would cost to own the land and irrigate it...but I guess that rationale is hard to grasp..that your average "poor" Iraqi couldnt maintain it...

[GiovanniC]

38. Okay...

"and as to the Orchids and Groves..think about the climate over there for just a minute..how much it would cost to own the land and irrigate it...but I guess that rationale is hard to grasp..that your average 'poor' Iraqi couldnt maintain it..."

Iraq is not ALL desert, and not every farmer in Iraq is rich by any stretch of the imagination. But let's follow your train of thought for a moment, just for the fun of it.

Iraq is a relatively dry and arid region, and orchards, groves, and farmlands are relatively rare (your point). Doesn't that make it even WORSE that we're wiping out these food sources?

I mean, if the land was rich and fertile everywhere, and food was growing like nobody's business, then destroying an orchard or two wouldn't be as evil. But if you are one of the only farms, because much of the land isn't fertile enough to grow food, and someone destroys your farm... that's BULLSH*T.

[kevinc]

47. hands are in the air

snipers should roam freely..or better yet we send more troops over there so we can post 1 guard every ten meters (1 every 3 at night) to watch the entire field...

[Bridget Burke]

39. The Orchards aren't owned by "poor" Iraqis...

So it's OK they were destroyed? I didn't realize we had Communists in the Army.

And I'm glad you made it back. Guess things will be all cleared up over there real soon. Until then, you get to stay here in Texas and comment wisely about the guys still dealing with it.

I'm NOT one of the ones wanting our soldiers to "just say no." They wouldn't get off as easily as your Commander in Chief did when he found the Guard cramped his style.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GiovanniC]

55. The Hostility Probably Has Something To Do

with the fact that you have come on this thread and basically spouted off nothing but Freeper/Rush/Rightwing talking points, advocated violating the Geneva Convention, and claimed that this board is "clueless" when it comes to military matters when we have a fair share of veterans and military in our ranks.

Just a guess.

[kevinc]

56. freeper stuff?

Really? its not freeper stuff..just not your ideal scenario..or is it "if you are not with us you are against us"?
anyhow..read my last response

#52

[GiovanniC]

59. Yes, Freeper Stuff

I.E.

"The Iraqis just want to kill our troops cause they can"

"this is the biggest group of uninformed idiots that I have ever seen"

"terror groups are going to attack isreal regardless..because they exist..period...get a clue.."

"Useful idiot" (Copyright 2002, FOX News)

et cetera

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

61. Not all Democrats agree with you, GiovanniC.

Personally, I don't. It seems pretty obvious to me that you need to focus your anger towards the politicians (primarily Republican) and multinational corporations who sent the troops over there and who have put our troops in a situation where they have no good options.

[GiovanniC]

64. I Didn't Say All Democrats Had to Agree With Me

I pointed out that a certain poster had spouted non-stop Freeper talking points on this thread. That's just a fact. I'm not saying that he IS a Freeper, I'm saying he's repeating Freeper talking points. Every one of the arguments he's made, I've heard before... on freerepublic, from Hannity, from Rush, et al. Not good company to be in, but that doesn't mean he isn't a Democrat.

For the record, my anger/frustration is focused on several people/groups. The main person is the so-called Commander-in-Chief.

I'm also angry with people like Rumsfeld and others at the Pentagon who see our troops as so many pawns on the chess board... expendable.

I'm angry with the American public at large, who approved of our going into this illegal, immoral and unnecessary war.

I'm angry with the right wing segment of the public who feels that in order to support the troops whose job is to protect the country that I love, that I have to support the illegal, immoral and unncessary war that they are fighting -- and that if I don't, I'm not patriotic.

I'm angry with the members of the administration who lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.

I'm angry with the Supreme Court for putting the dunce in office in the first place.

I'm angry with the commanding officers who are giving orders to bulldoze orchards, groves, and farms in direct violation of the Geneva convention and I'm angry with the troops who obeyed an illegal order.

That's a lot of anger, I'll admit, but I've been focusing that energy into making it my number one goal to boot the dunce out of office and to bring our troops home safely, with minimum loss to them or our nation's already-tarnished image.

[kevinc]

67. Ok

I can live with those sentiments but I must admit that I am a bit perturbed that my retorts were modded..and yours were not?

but hey.....

you spewed venom at the TROOPS over there..wrong place to send and what can i say ..it pissed/pisses me off..
and just because a freeper or consv says something doesnt make it less than legitimate...

guess i should just keep my mouth shut until i get a high post count..
cause otherwise dissent isnt allowed

[GiovanniC]

68. In No Way Did I "Spew Venom" At the Troops

In fact, I never said anything against ALL of the troops categorically. I said something against the specific troops that were involved in this particular incident.

I believe that in addition to it being inhumane, illegal, and unjustified, that it is also counter-productive. I think things like this serve more to inflame more Iraqis into resisting American troops than they do to stop and prevent further attacks.

Aside from that, my argument was that the troops shouldn't be violating the Geneva convention. Would you like to take the other side of that debate?

[kevinc]

71. no your debate is that they are

breaking the geneva convention and my stance is that they arent..
do you want to try again..

and there has been lots of venom spewed at the troops in this thread..and until you have benn in the situation you cant really know what its like can ya?
like i said respond to post 52

cause all this is a pissing contest and you seem upest that I am not liberal enough for you

[GiovanniC]

77. Geneva Convention

"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

The troops bulldozed orchards and fruit groves (agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops). This is directly in violation of the above section of the Geneva convention. At this point, you are arguing from a position in direct opposition to facts.

[kevinc]

79. if you couldnt find the noted exceptions its cause you didnt look

Civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

joe schmoe picks up a rifle he is a target


Art 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:
a. as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or
b. if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.

4. These objects shall not be made the object of reprisals.

5. In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defence of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity.



gee maybe you should read the whole thing then shouldn't you..if you couldnt find the exceptions..odd that i knew right where to find them huh

[DuctapeFatwa]

78. Yes, they are in violation of 4th Geneva, among other things

And not only in Iraq.

You can argue that the US is exempt from Geneva, or you can argue that US should withdraw from it, or that you think it should be amended or rescinded completely, and while those arguments might be more popular with bush regime loyalists than some DU posters, they would still be arguments based on your opinion.

To state that they are not in violation of it is simply not factual.

[kevinc]

81. Oh yeah?

Which article paragraph and subparagraph?

[DuctapeFatwa]

83. It will be easier for both if I look for some they are NOT violating

You'd think the Constitution would be enough toilet paper for one evil regime.

Must be something they ate...

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Francis]

57. how insulting

A different view, is simply that, there's no need to throw insults and implications around
Let's all try and keep things civil

[NicoleM]

44. Yeah. . .

that Fertile Crescent sure must be hard to farm.

[Zhade]

95. EXCELLENT comeback!

NT!

[Skittles]

31. the biggest bunch of uninformed idiots on military matters

can definitely be found at the free republic

[kevinc]

37. Then go over and educate them...

but conservative and libs alike that havent served shouldnt talk out there arses now should they?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. Libs?

Have you not yet realized that all of your talking points are null and void? They're the RAVINGS OF A DERANGED DRUG ADDICT! That means that all of the crap you've memorized lo these last few years is meaningless, not in play, invalidated. Get it? Good. You just can't go around quoting a babbling drug addict anymore. I hope that while Rush is getting the help he so desperately needs, you'll take the time to do some self-assessment (that means thinkin' 'bout yourself).

[kevinc]

43. huh?

what are you talking about?

[rocktivity]

72. Originally posted by Kevinc

you hear from the Iraqis "that they are being punished for...blah blah blah.." and that is what you believe...

Here's the link to the story. Maybe you'd better read it...again.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=452375

COULD the farmers be lying? Of course. Could the military be lying? Why not, when the commander-in-chief has practially invented it? Besides, I thought food was in such short supply there that the soliders are getting one MRE a day. If you're really interested in sticking up for the soliders, here are some things that are REALLY worth complaining about.


rocknation

[kevinc]

74. Funny....

Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district
I tend to believe Americans first..is cause I am in the Army or am I in the Army because of it...

I guess it boils down to what YOU (OR ME, or ANYONE) want to believe. i believe the troops involved

[kevinc]

75. Oh yeah

great link...

cuts to family housing TRUE

but there is going to be an increase in BAH..(nore soldiers live off post now than ever)

the decrease in the danger pay and family seperation pay again is true but what is not mentioned that soldiers will get up to 600 more than what they are getting now through other programs..and that the 250 and HDP/family Seperation pay were both implemented by the pentagon were meant to be temp until other programs could be started...


and btw the cranberries song
great song
to completely isolate the military
try serving then bitch would ya

[leetrisck]

23. There is a military hotline the U.S.

for soldiers to call and a lot of them are calling especially the ones that got to come home on leave - asking what would happen to them if they didn't go back, etc. Military leaders are encouraging people to take their leaves in Germany hoping they will not be tempted not to return to Iraq. Hotline is getting calls from U.S., Iraq, Kuwait,etc. Some military are not showing up for duty when they are called up for guard and reserve duty in Iraq.

[Mz Pip]

25. Another way to say "no"

is to not re entlist for another tour.

I am curious about re enlistment figures. Are they up or down?

MzPip
:dem:

[kevinc]

27. pretty much the same..

no real dramatic changes there..but..also note that there have been a lot of involuntary extensions..although those are starting to be rescinded now...

[angka]

34. right before the court-martial

they don't get to pick. that responsibility lies with us civilians, who owe it to our soldiers to stop this.

[Francis]

36. I can line up

to this point

[clemencia2us]

50. orchards

I haven't read the story because it makes me sick to think that we would do something like this. But, sad to say, I can see how it would not bother some of those guys to do this. I was deployed to a base in Kuwait (Air Force) that was used as a staging area for the Army right before the war started. These guys came in and stole so much stuff (furniture, tvs, etc), they had to be banned from the base. Sometimes I think that is part of their training. Deprive them of things and turn them into wild animals. But like Jack Nicholson said, "Who do you want on that wall?" I know, I'm just trying to rationalize the whole situation.

[kevinc]

52. Look

The thing that you have to keep in mind is that many of the troops want to be there even less than you want them there..
but they indeed are there, and while they are there they are scared and nervous and with apparent reason..so why are you taking out your frustrations on them? they are doing what they need to do make themselves feel secure and try increase their security..there are already enough politics involved in this..
What the focus should be on is getting the troops out of there, and if there are atrocites commited then focus on those..but taking a bulldozer to a grove of trees that snipers could/have been known to hide them certainly does not constitute an atrocity nor the kind of response that you are giving them..its this kind of "support" that troops love and embrace..and turns them right into the arms of the consv....
I was/am enraged at the fact that folks that have never been shot at can sit at a computer and chastise troops taht are getting mortared and fired at and killed daily for trying to make themselves a bit more secure...

And yes, the iraqis that are doing the shooting would kill any american that they could just because..if nothing else to elicit a response from the troops to do something that will enrage more iraqis and Islamists..
Its a vicious circle but the troops are caught in the middle..not the cause or effect but rather a little of both.

edited for some spelling

[Francis]

53. yes yes yes n/t

[kevinc]

54. I'll even apologize

For my comments earlier in the thread..but will leave them up so that others can see what folks were/replying to..

So here it is my apologies...

[kevinc]

62. where did everyone go?

I have been called a commie a freeper and it has been insiuated that I need to go back to Iraq or that i am not in the military at all..or that i am just plain stupid..but no one wants to respond anymore?

[w4rma]

70. I totally agree with your post #52, kevinc. (n/t)

[sujan]

69. they are

http://www.graffiks.com/dylan_articles/dylan52_generica.html

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mari333]

82. A LOT are saying No , so Help Them by emailing Sen Levin

http://levin.senate.gov/contact.htm
ask him to please NOT allow National Guard troops in Michigan to be sent overseas...Thank you.

[dtecker]

90. You all need to learn.

Yeesh.

[onebigbadwulf]

92. Never

Saying no to an order during war is treason and punishable by death then and there. This is probably why they're starting to commit suicide.

[GiovanniC]

98. LAWFUL Order

n/t

[PsychoDad]

100. Word would have to get out first...

Through military and governmental secrecy, then get mentioned in our ever vigulant media before we hear of anyone saying "NO".

More likley we would hear of Treason accusations and trials without any real info comming out.